or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Morgan Stanley predicts Apple will incorporate NFC into future iPhone for mobile payments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Morgan Stanley predicts Apple will incorporate NFC into future iPhone for mobile payments

post #1 of 66
Thread Starter 
While prognosticators have given failed forecasts for years predicting Apple will add near-field communications technology to the iPhone for touch-less mobile payments, investment firm Morgan Stanley offered the same prediction on Tuesday, suggesting that NFC will be a key part of the company's so-called "iWallet."

Touch ID


While competing smartphones have shipped with NFC chips for years, tapping into services like Google Wallet, mobile payments have yet to take off with consumers. In a rare candid comment about potential future plans, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook hinted that his company could join the fray and enter the mobile payments space by leveraging the secure Touch ID fingerprint scanner found on the iPhone 5s to authenticate transactions.

What the iPhone 5s doesn't have, however, is an NFC chip. To date, Apple's close-proximity wireless efforts have relied on a combination of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, most notably with the location-aware iBeacon specification that debuted last year and is now used by numerous retail outlets, including Apple's own stores.

Still, Morgan Stanley believes Apple will go one step further and incorporate an NFC chip into its future devices, making the technology a "core part of its mobile payments strategy." Analyst Craig Hettenbach said in a note to investors Tuesday, a copy of which was provided to AppleInsider, that he believes NFC is reaching an "inflection point," thanks to new partnerships, potential licenses, and patent filings, including those from Apple.

In addition to patent filings from Apple describing the use of NFC, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth for mobile payments, Hettenbach also noted that Apple's new retail point-of-sale systems from VeriFone place the iPhone 5s in a case that not only allows traditional credit-card swipes, but also utilizes NFC tap-to-pay technology with compatible smartphones. To date, Apple's own iPhones have not yet offered this capability.

Hettenbach also cited a report from earlier this month that alleged Apple had reached an agreement with China UnionPay, a Chinese interbank network. The two companies were said to be working together on NFC payments, suggesting the technology might come to a future iPhone.

Payment
An Apple patent describing e-wallet NFC payments was discovered by AppleInsider in January.


If Apple does in fact adopt NFC technology, Hettenbach expects the company will go with a standalone NFC controller for its future iPhones. His industry sources indicated that most NFC implementations in smartphones in the near future will utilize standalone chips, as combo chips from companies like Broadcom apparently face technical issues at the moment.

Apple would also have to choose whether to go with an embedded implementation for credit card data in mobile payments, or a cloud-based approach that would utilize host card implementation. An embedded secure element would ensure that the user's credit card data is held securely on the iPhone, but Hettenbach said host card emulation would allow Apple to circumvent carriers, who in the past have blocked mobile payment features like Google Wallet on Android phones.

Given Apple's focus on security, Hettenbach suspects Apple will go with the embedded route, relying on a stacked NFC radio and embedded secure element solution. And given its large user bace and clout with carriers due to iPhone sales, he believes Apple might be able to bypass the carrier "logjam" and gain approval for its mobile payments system.

Claims that Apple might adopt NFC e-wallet technology in a future iPhone are not new. The New York Times claimed back in March of 2011 that Apple was planning to utilize NFC technology in a "coming" iPhone for mobile payments, but to date that functionality has not appeared.

Apple has also made key hires related to NFC and radio-frequency identification, but thus far the company has been content to stick with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for its wireless connectivity.
post #2 of 66

Given that we can already use iPhones for mobile payments, does the NFC chip add enough convenience to justify the expense, etc?  Can't Apple do well enough without it?

post #3 of 66

This year's rumors seem to be the same as last year: NFC, larger screen, higher resolution, etc. Keep recycling the same predictions until they either occur or supposedly scrapped due to some vague issues. I guarantee we will STILL hear chimes about iTV next year.

post #4 of 66

They keep shooting in the same place in hopes that one day the target will cross their path and they can claim victory.

post #5 of 66
If you are a Morgan Stanley client, you seriously have to question why you are paying them.
Apple will never support NFC, they have moved on to ibeacons.
post #6 of 66
Given the changes in market, e.g., US finally getting smart chips in credit cards and the associated infrastructure changes will have to play a big role in how this rolls out. The International dimension of smartphone payments, the rapid (albeit recent) adoption of iBeacon, and external constraints by carriers and credit card companies make doing this right very tricky.

The Google Wallet et al strategy of "build it and they will come" is unlikely to get traction as recently demonstrated.

Finally, what is the consumer job to be done that says use a smartphone to buy stuff?
1. Don't need to carry credit card, probably not
2. More secure, maybe but the smart chip card is pretty great improvement and is happening now. And does anyone really believe computer based payments is more secure????
3. It's faster since you can buy stuff without a checkout counter and/or clerk. My experience with Apple app checkout in stores is positive, but this is the exception. Self service checkout in general sucks and is chosen for anonymity or desperation due to understaffed, read CHEAP, checkout staff.

Therefore, the use case that will make this fly seems weak. This prob has more likelihood than Apple iTV, but still more hype than well thought out. Sort like the Internet banking fad of a few years ago.
post #7 of 66
NFC or no NFC- I don't care. I just want a mobile payment system of some sort. Make passbook actually functional for 99% of the population. Hopeful this is the year.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #8 of 66
And if they don't: Apple isn't innovative; Apple falls behind...AGAIN; Steve Jobs would never have....
post #9 of 66
Yet another big bag of hurt. Apple avoided it in the past when Steve Jobs was at the helm because it was unsafe, unreliable and not elegant. If Apple does come out with NFC, I blame it on 'the new boss'. There are much better technical solution that Tim Cook can marshal the troops to 'cook' up than that ugly bag of hurt.
post #10 of 66
No Morgan Stanley, Apple will not use NFC, because NFC is crap technology. Perhaps you, Morgan Stanley, should catch up with the modern world and understand WHY RFC is crap technology.
post #11 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh View Post
 

Given that we can already use iPhones for mobile payments, does the NFC chip add enough convenience to justify the expense, etc?  Can't Apple do well enough without it?

They can do better, not just "well enough".

 

These non-tech companies that perform the "analysis" of tech companies fall into the main trap that someone like Jonny Ive does not: You must throw out preconceived notions about what something is before trying to tackle a project. 

 

Talking about NFC in the same breath as Mobile Payments is just a way to confine yourself to a limited scope of ideas.

post #12 of 66
No.

By using NFC Apple limits those 600 million iTunes accounts with credit cards down to a fraction of users that actually have the latest device (iPhone 6). You can't start a payment system that only works with a limited number of users.

BT Low Energy and iBeacons is where it's at.
post #13 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

US finally getting smart chips in credit cards

 

What gave you the impression that this is a good thing?

post #14 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh View Post

Given that we can already use iPhones for mobile payments, does the NFC chip add enough convenience to justify the expense, etc?  Can't Apple do well enough without it?

NFC is about security. It's inherently different from BT and WiFi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekCurrie View Post

No Morgan Stanley, Apple will not use NFC, because NFC is crap technology. Perhaps you, Morgan Stanley, should catch up with the modern world and understand WHY RFC is crap technology.

No, no it's not crap technology.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #15 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

While competing smartphones have shipped with NFC chips for years

 

From what I remember, "also ran" phone makers introduced NFC as the next big thing and Apple would be doomed if they didn't use it. Then the same companies stopped adding it as it didn't catch on (because Apple didn't implement it).

post #16 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

NFC is about security. It's inherently different from BT and WiFi.
No, no it's not crap technology.
Wrong as I described previously.

There is absolutely no difference in security between NFC, WiFi, BT, your Internet connection or phone line (many stores still use phone lines to connect to the payment processor). They can ALL be snooped just as easily.

NFC proponents point to the short distance of the signal as a means of providing security. This is 100% false. All it takes to snoop every single NFC transaction is a tiny antenna mounted on the back side of the POS terminal or even on its stand. If crooks want to record data they're going to be able to regardless of the technology.

As I posted before, crooks in Vancouver actually modified POS terminals to record credit card transactions. Worrying about sending data over BT or WiFi is pointless when criminals will just go to the source (the terminal). It's far easier to slap an NFC receiver to a terminal than it is to modify a terminal, making NFC an easier target for organized crime than current methods.


The way to secure your data isn't in trying to make the highway (BT, NFC, WiFi or Internet connection) more secure - it's in not transmitting sensitive or personal information in the first place. Which is why my idea of Apple becoming the processor and eliminating the broadcasting of personal information and credit cards is superior to the status quo current payment processors use.
post #17 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

 

What gave you the impression that this is a good thing?

 

It's not the chip alone; it's chip-and-pin.

post #18 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Wrong as I described previously.

There is absolutely no difference in security between NFC, WiFi, BT, your Internet connection or phone line (many stores still use phone lines to connect to the payment processor). They can ALL be snooped just as easily.

That's axiomatically false, which you show in your quoted comment below.
Quote:
NFC proponents point to the short distance of the signal as a means of providing security. This is 100% false. All it takes to snoop every single NFC transaction is a tiny antenna mounted on the back side of the POS terminal or even on its stand. If crooks want to record data they're going to be able to regardless of the technology.

So you need a special antenna mounted and directed at the exact spot where the NFC secure loop takes place. You don't see the difference between that and an omnidirectional signal that can be sent for dozen to thousands of feet from the source and be picked up people nowhere near where the transaction took place without any special equipment?

What you describe is EXACTLY whey NFC is inherently more secure. Your comments are like saying that a bank vault is less secure than putting your savings in a paper bag in the back of your mailbox because all a thief has to do is rob the bank to get your money.

No one has said that NFC is so secure that it can't hacked or that other security measures need to be in place, but a shorter range wireless signal, especially one that uses a secure loop, is inherently more secure than a longer range omnidirectional signal.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/20/14 at 8:24am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #19 of 66
If that happens, I'll look like a fool for all the comments against NFC that I've done.
The only advantage NFC has over BLE is that the beacons don't need electricity to work.

BLE has a lot of advantages over NFC.

I don't see Apple doing that.
post #20 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

No.

By using NFC Apple limits those 600 million iTunes accounts with credit cards down to a fraction of users that actually have the latest device (iPhone 6). You can't start a payment system that only works with a limited number of users.

BT Low Energy and iBeacons is where it's at.

 

You're forgetting the other piece of hardware in this puzzle... Touch ID... Still leaves only a fraction of their user base. And actually limiting access to new features like this is EXACTLY what Apple has always done. Start small and build it up. Siri, Touch ID, etc. I don't see why Apple would stray from this with something as sensitive as an e-wallet.

 

A separate, highly secure NFC radio tied directly with Touch ID might be exactly what's needed to earn consumer trust. The radio is only turned on under two conditions: the device is waiting on a transaction (software) and the user's finger is on the Touch ID sensor (hardware) and has been authorized. Then and only then does the NFC radio turn on and being a transaction. This would help a lot to all the security issues surrounding NFC.

 

Furthermore, this doesn't push iBeacon out. iBeacon is and was always meant to be a beacon technology for presence and guidance, it's not meant for making transactions, in fact it's not even capable of it. As it is today, iBeacons just picks up beacon signals, it doesn't react on them. It's up to the app to determine how to proceed once a beacon is heard.


Edited by mjtomlin - 5/20/14 at 8:10am
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #21 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

BLE has a lot of advantages over NFC.

These are not mutually exclusive technologies. BT is oft used alongside NFC the way BT is used with WiFi for AirDrop on iOS-based devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

You're forgetting the other piece of hardware in this puzzle... Touch ID... Still leaves only a fraction of their user base. And actually limiting access to new features like this is EXACTLY what Apple has always done. Start small and build it up. Siri, Touch ID, etc. I don't see why Apple would stray from this with something as sensitive as an e-wallet.

A separate, highly secure NFC radio tied directly with Touch ID might be exactly what's needed to earn consumer trust. The radio is only turned on under two conditions: the device is waiting on a transaction (software) and the user's finger is on the Touch ID sensor (hardware) and has been authorized. Then and only then does the NFC radio turn on and being a transaction. This would help a lot to all the security issues surrounding NFC.

Imagine if Apple had it set up so that your credit card information was stored in the same location as your fingerprint data. And you could even attach a specific card with a specific finger. You could have several cards stored on your iPhone and just use a different finger to use whichever card at checkout.

Don't forget the secure enclave on the A-series chip.
Quote:
Furthermore, this doesn't push iBeacon out. iBeacon is and was always meant to be a beacon technology for presence and guidance, it's not meant for making transactions, in fact it's not even capable of it. As it is today, iBeacons just picks up beacon signals, it doesn't react on them. It's up to the app to determine how to proceed once a beacon is heard.

Because Apple wasn't first with NFC there seems to be this irrational hatred of the technology without considering how it can be utilized to better service customers. The funny thing is Apple is rarely the first to adopt a technology but often the first to do it properly.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 66
Doubt it. I think they'll just intergrate the feature into iBeacon.
post #23 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeiP5 View Post

Doubt it. I think they'll just intergrate the feature into iBeacon.

How does an iBeacon work with payments? iBeacons (not BT) seems inherently different than a payment system.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #24 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

Finally, what is the consumer job to be done that says use a smartphone to buy stuff?
1. Don't need to carry credit card, probably not
2. More secure, maybe but the smart chip card is pretty great improvement and is happening now. And does anyone really believe computer based payments is more secure????
3. It's faster since you can buy stuff without a checkout counter and/or clerk. My experience with Apple app checkout in stores is positive, but this is the exception. Self service checkout in general sucks and is chosen for anonymity or desperation due to understaffed, read CHEAP, checkout staff.

You're actually wrong on all three counts.

 

Japan has been using contactless NFC payments on their cellphones since 2005, their "osaifu-keitai."

 

First of all, no one expects these devices to eliminate credit cards or cash as there are plenty of vendors who don't accept NFC payments.

 

What they do is reduce your wallet thickness by eliminating separate merchant cards like transit passes and loyalty clubs. The adoption in Japan was driven by deploying popular mass transit card systems on the cellphone payment system. Just swipe your phone over the fare gate reader and walk through. The combination of speed and convenience made it successful, not "increased security."

 

Good self-service checkout is something some retailers are still trying to figure out. However, things like POS terminals at gas station fuel pumps are well accepted now. Again, speed and convenience make this successful. It's not really any more secure than paying the attendant at the booth.

 

Japan has been doing this for almost a decade without major security issues. Contactless NFC payments are coming to the iPhone someday, it's a given. The timing of the release is a question, mostly due to payment system infrastructure, and the ability of Apple to partner with key merchants and transit agencies. It must be convenient to users several times a week, not once or twice a month.


Edited by mpantone - 5/20/14 at 8:46am
post #25 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's axiomatically false, which you show in your quoted comment below.
So you need a special antenna mounted and directed at the exact spot where the NFC secure loop takes place. You don't see the difference between that and an omnidirectional signal that can be sent for dozen to thousands of feet from the source and be picked up people nowhere near where the transaction took place without any special equipment?

What you describe is EXACTLY whey NFC is inherently more secure. Your comments are like saying that a bank vault is less secure than putting your savings in a paper bag in the back of your mailbox because all a thief has to do is rob the bank to get your money.

No one has said that NFC is so secure that it can't hacked or that other security measures need to be in place, but a shorter range wireless signal, especially one that uses a secure loop, is inherently more secure than a longer range omnidirectional signal.

 

You missed my point completely. NFC claims that the distance provides the security. I'm saying that no signal transmitted wirelessly or wired is secure from being snooped. Saying NFC is secure because it works over a short distance is the same as saying a 100 metre cable is more secure than a 500 metre cable - both can be intercepted just as easily.

 

Credit card fraud has entered the high-tech age. It used to be that you had to worry about the guy at the gas station skimming your card. Now credit card fraud is done on a large scale by organized criminals who aren't interested in randomly picking up someone here and there - they steal data in bulk. You don't need a "special antenna". NFC components are dirt cheap and easy to obtain. And placing a receiver under a POS terminal is INFINITELY easier than actually modifying a POS terminal with new software to scan and collect cards (which is what organized crime is actually doing these days).

 

A short range signal makes NO DIFFERENCE to criminals who want to scan transactions. In fact, it would make it easier for them as they can place their receiver in the exact spot where people are scanning and ONLY pick up the actual transactions. Scanning WiFi, BT or your wired Internet connection means the criminals have to scan ALL the traffic/data on those systems and then try to decipher which portions of who know how many gigs of data are the transactions and which aren't. They don't need to do this with NFC - every single piece they pick up is directly related to financial transactions.

post #26 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

You missed my point completely. NFC claims that the distance provides the security. I'm saying that no signal transmitted wirelessly or wired is secure from being snooped. Saying NFC is secure because it works over a short distance is the same as saying a 100 metre cable is more secure than a 500 metre cable - both can be intercepted just as easily.

Credit card fraud has entered the high-tech age. It used to be that you had to worry about the guy at the gas station skimming your card. Now credit card fraud is done on a large scale by organized criminals who aren't interested in randomly picking up someone here and there - they steal data in bulk. You don't need a "special antenna". NFC components are dirt cheap and easy to obtain. And placing a receiver under a POS terminal is INFINITELY easier than actually modifying a POS terminal with new software to scan and collect cards (which is what organized crime is actually doing these days).

A short range signal makes NO DIFFERENCE to criminals who want to scan transactions. In fact, it would make it easier for them as they can place their receiver in the exact spot where people are scanning and ONLY pick up the actual transactions. Scanning WiFi, BT or your wired Internet connection means the criminals have to scan ALL the traffic/data on those systems and then try to decipher which portions of who know how many gigs of data are the transactions and which aren't. They don't need to do this with NFC - every single piece they pick up is directly related to financial transactions.

Then you've missed the point. No one has said that NFC was infallible but it's INARGUABLE that range has an effect on security. It's why cyber crimes are on the rise because one no longer has to phsycially break into your house to steal your identity or rob you in a dark alley to steal your money.

No, entering an establishment and placing an undetectable device on another device without being detected by cameras or staff or getting it detected later is far more difficult than being far outside a building in car or some place else with no cameras or people in view to steal BT or WiFI data over from dozens to thousands of feet away.


PS: If you don't think short range is inherently more secure than long range then tell me why you have given your CC with all its data to people working at a retail outlet but haven't posted your CC data on a site like AI. If you think the risk is identical then go ahead and post your CC hear. You won't because that would be risky, just like thinking WiFi is inherently as secure as NFC.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/20/14 at 9:00am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 66

I'll believe it when I see it.

For several years now, NFC has been on the verge of breakthrough. It's not happening. It's getting old. Even when it was new it was nothing but some fragments of ancient RFID standards throw in together.

I know a bit about its innards, "bag of hurt" is apt.

 

For NFC to succeed banks will have to cooperate with other banks, and carriers with other carriers. This is not in their DNA.

 

NFC only has significant traction in Japan and and South Korea.

 

But how important is NFC to Koreans when the smartphone with the highest customer satisfaction rating does not have NFC? 

How important is it to Japanese when the best selling smartphone is one without NFC?

 

NFC's security "benefit" from short range communication means finding a POS and queueing up to pay.

 

People who are comfortable with buying online are not going to put up with standing in line to pay when they don't have to.

With Bluetooth, paying will be at least as convenient and safe as online payment, except you'll have the merchandise in your hands.

 

In Apple stores today you can pick up a product, scan the bar-code and pay from the app, and leave.

With BLE you can skip scanning the bar-code.

 

Something else to ponder:

PayPal is going to do mobile payment without NFC.

Square is not using NFC, Square's CEO "Sees no value in NFC".

 

 

Groupon is going to make an iPad based POS, I bet they'll skip NFC too.

post #28 of 66
NFC? Apple has moved on. Next the analysts will say Apple will add micro USB and sd card slots.
post #29 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

NFC? Apple has moved on. Next the analysts will say Apple will add micro USB and sd card slots.

How can Apple have moved on from something they've never included?
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/20/14 at 9:08am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Don't forget the secure enclave on the A-series chip.

 

After thinking about it, I removed that part of my post. I was in fact referring to the Secure Enclave, but the problem there is it's not a place to store data for later use. What makes it secure is the fact that once data is encrypted and stored here, it NEVER leaves unencrypted. Touch ID encrypts your fingerprint data and sends it to the Secure Enclave. Here is where the data is decrypted and compared with previously stored fingerprint data. There's no way to get the key to decrypt the data stored here, so nothing has access to the original data, not even the A7.

 

Any information stored here is only good for authorization purposes - basically checking if two values match. Otherwise the data is completely useless to the outside world.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

After thinking about it, I removed that part of my post. I was in fact referring to the Secure Enclave, but the problem there is it's not a place to store data for later use. What makes it secure is the fact that once data is encrypted and stored here, it NEVER leaves unencrypted. Touch ID encrypts your fingerprint data and sends it to the Secure Enclave. Here is where the data is decrypted and compared with previously stored fingerprint data. There's no way to get the key to decrypt the data stored here, so nothing has access to the original data, not even the A7.

Any information stored here is only good for authorization purposes - basically checking if two values match. Otherwise the data is completely useless to the outside world.

1) Sure, but that's all part of the inherent security measures that make Apple's solution better than the competition. Samsung literally puts a visual representation of your fingerprint on the screen when you use the Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner!

2) I don't think its out of the question to think it's impossible to reverse engineer the data in the secure enclave. I'm not saying it's probably and it's certainly better than anything else we've seen but I wouldn't go so far as saying it's impossible.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 66

How about the existing hundreds of millions of iPhone users?  I don't think Apple will like to alienate these users or force them to upgrade the phone.  Incorporating NFC Apple helps billions of Android users and hurt its own base. 

post #33 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


How can Apple have moved on from something they've never included?

Apple tests many concepts in their labs, not all make it to the final product.

 

So yes, they can move on from a technology or concept, even if the general public is not aware of it. Apple makes very deliberate decisions in choosing what and what not to include in their products and services.

 

I'm not stating that this is the case here, just pointing out that Apple consciously excluded some features, like cellular data in notebooks.


Edited by mpantone - 5/20/14 at 10:06am
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
 

How about the existing hundreds of millions of iPhone users?  I don't think Apple will like to alienate these users or force them to upgrade the phone.  Incorporating NFC Apple helps billions of Android users and hurt its own base. 

Again, contactless NFC payment systems don't replace credit cards, cash, standalone loyalty cards, etc. They simply provide another level of convenience for those who choose to use the system, just like the addition of Touch ID to the iPhone 5s (or any of the other unique features that have debuted on a new handset).

 

If Apple releases an NFC iPhone tomorrow, it doesn't disable the functionality of your credit cards or the cash in your wallet.

 

Likewise, such a move would not add any functionality to competitors' handsets. If you are using NFC payments on your Android handset today, it's business as usual tomorrow.

post #35 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamh View Post
 

Given that we can already use iPhones for mobile payments, does the NFC chip add enough convenience to justify the expense, etc?  Can't Apple do well enough without it?

Probably depends on what dominates the retail space: if that's trending in the NFC direction adding NFC to iPhones would add utility.

post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Sure, but that's all part of the inherent security measures that make Apple's solution better than the competition. Samsung literally puts a visual representation of your fingerprint on the screen when you use the Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner!

2) I don't think its out of the question to think it's impossible to reverse engineer the data in the secure enclave. I'm not saying it's probably and it's certainly better than anything else we've seen but I wouldn't go so far as saying it's impossible.

 

Nothing is 100% completely foolproof, but when the A7 is fab'ed, the Secure Enclave is given (hard-wired) a random unique number used to create security keys. No one knows what that number is (not even Apple) and it's impossible to get at it. There is a buffer zone between the A7 application processor and the Secure Enclave processor that limits interaction - there's is no direct access to the Secure Enclave.

 

Brute force decryption is the only way you'd ever be able to gain access to any data extracted from there... and that would have to be done for each and every individual A7 as the ID is completely random and unique. Furthermore, that key would probably only work on that single chunk of data.


Edited by mjtomlin - 5/20/14 at 10:00am
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #37 of 66
NFC and a large screen are the only two things that can keep me in the iPhone ecosystem. Anyway, NFC is good in a phone, but it will be amazing in a watch. You will only have to swipe you watch and then press you fingerprint on the screen to confirm and that's it, you've paid! Practically you don't have to take out anything from your pocket, you always have your wallet in your hand. And even if someone steals your watch, they don't have your fingerprints. iWatch + NFC is the best way to go.
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Apple tests many concepts in their labs, not all make it to the final product.

So yes, they can move on from a technology or concept, even if the general public is not aware of it. Apple makes very deliberate decisions in choosing what and what not to include in their products and services.

So you would say that Apple moved from including nuclear power or fairy dust in their products because there is no proof that they haven't tested it? That's just ridiculous! Based on the available information there is no proof that Apple had any working NFC prototypes on the ready so we can't say that they moved from it just as we can't say they moved on any other tech. We can speculate as to the likelihood of what techs they have probably tested but we can't be sure, just as we can't be sure they have moved on as opposed to still perfecting.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #39 of 66
is this an article from the archives??
post #40 of 66
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post
How about the existing hundreds of millions of iPhone users?  I don't think Apple will like to alienate these users or force them to upgrade the phone.  Incorporating NFC Apple helps billions of Android users and hurt its own base. 

 

… What?!

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Morgan Stanley predicts Apple will incorporate NFC into future iPhone for mobile payments
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Morgan Stanley predicts Apple will incorporate NFC into future iPhone for mobile payments